10 reasons why TOS is better than TNG

[Ghrakh]

I politely disagree. TOS may have been revolutionary for its time, but it hasn't aged well. The writing and acting pale in comparison to TNG, as do the special effects, music, and practically anything else you can think of. I tried watching it, but after a few dozen episodes I had to give up because it was such a bore...

I respect TOS for what it accomplished and generally enjoy it when I watch. I wouldn't call it a bore but it's understandable as sometimes it plods along, and the plywood ship and planetary "foam boulders" sets definitely require me to suspend disbelief a bit much in spots. Overall, I don't revisit it nearly as often as I do TNG.

 

[sonak]

Star Trek had plenty of romance-of-the week stories. In fact, it exclusively had romance-of-the-week stories -- just not to the exclusion of action-adventure elements like episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation such as "Lessons" or "In Theory." But, as I said, Star Trek: The Next Generation wasn't an action-adventure series. It was a drama. (Both series, of course, have heavy science fiction elements)

In any event, I still think it's a mistake to label this kind of storytelling "soap opera-esque." In those programs, I would think it would be exceptionally rare for a romantic relationship to play out in the confines of a single episode. If you're just looking at episodes that primarily deal in romance, that's by no means solely the confines of soap operas.

it "exclusively had romance-of the week stories?" I can't remember any of those. It had romance and character development, but it was part of an episode with a sci-fi/adventure plot, not an episode unto itself. As you write, TOS wouldn't do an episode like "In Theory" or "Lessons."

It seems like we're in agreement except for the terms-so TOS didn't do "exclusive character drama" like TNG sometimes would. Better?

 

[Harvey]

Yeah, I think we're more or less in agreement. I'm just quibbling about terminology. Thus goes the internet.

 

[plynch]

Shatner - "wooden?" Never heard him called THAT before.

You've seriously never heard anyone criticize Shatner's acting? You're right, we must be watching two different shows...

Criticize, of course. He's . . . the . . . Shat!

But "wooden" he ain't!
"Wooden" is Beltran, first and foremost, man. Then Wang. Then re. TNG, it's Frakes, Sirtis, Burton, Dorn, Crosby. Oh, it hurts to listen to them sometimes! I'll give you Meaney and Spiner if it had been a different role, maybe. Colm is a stretch, though, due to limited screen time. But he's good.

But acting-wise I have to compare TOS's big 3 plus Scotty to all of TNG's main cast, since all the cast had lots of screen time. So, really, TOS's 3.5 v. TNG's 7? TOS by a mile. Maybe that's unfair to TNG, since it had so many actual recurring characters (as opposed to Uhura or Sulu, whose lines usually could've been anyone's). But TNG made the choice to feature more characters (a next generation), and frankly the acting talent isn't as strong imho.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

Shatner - "wooden?" Never heard him called THAT before.

You've seriously never heard anyone criticize Shatner's acting? You're right, we must be watching two different shows...

Criticize, of course. He's . . . the . . . Shat!

But "wooden" he ain't!
"Wooden" is Beltran, first and foremost, man. Then Wang. Then re. TNG, it's Frakes, Sirtis, Burton, Dorn, Crosby. Oh, it hurts to listen to them sometimes! I'll give you Meaney and Spiner if it had been a different role, maybe. Colm is a stretch, though, due to limited screen time. But he's good.

But acting-wise I have to compare TOS's big 3 plus Scotty to all of TNG's main cast, since all the cast had lots of screen time. So, really, TOS's 3.5 v. TNG's 7? TOS by a mile. Maybe that's unfair to TNG, since it had so many actual recurring characters (as opposed to Uhura or Sulu, whose lines usually could've been anyone's). But TNG made the choice to feature more characters (a next generation), and frankly the acting talent isn't as strong imho.

What made TNG's character's a gazillion times better, IMO, was the way they were written. TOS may have had some good actors, sure, but the writing was horses**.
The characters on TNG were, in many ways, an evolved form of humanity. They were beyond greed, lust for power, and a lot of the negative traits that plague humans today. They were role models that you could look up to, and I idolized them. With all of that in mind, they were still human and they did have flaws. Picard dealt with family issues and revenge, Data struggled to understand what it meant to be human, and Worf was an outsider among both humans and Klingons who struggled for acceptance. In Pegasus we discovered a dark secret that Riker had been hiding for a long time. Crusher had a complicated relationship with Picard because of her late-husband. In a couple different episodes we had to witness Geordi's trouble with women. And then there was Wesley, the confused teenager who got into some trouble in the First Duty and who abandoned Starfleet to go off with the Traveler in Journey's End.
Picard, Data, and Worf are definitely the most complex characters on the show, but the other characters are interesting and unique in their own ways. The actors had so much chemistry that even if you didn't think a character was interesting as an individual, you could still enjoy seeing them interact with the other cast members. The poker games they played were so much fun!
And as far as guest stars go, TNG wins by a mile! Q, Lwaxana Troi, The Borg, the TNG Klingons, the TNG Romulans, the Cardassians, and so many other memorable characters and alien races.

 

[Anwar]

TOS only had three central characters to focus each story on, and those same three characters were also a Freudian Trio (Id, Ego, Superego). It 's easier to write episodes only about those three when they also functionally work as one character unit, opposed to TNG's more ensemble based cast.

Also, TOS only had 3 seasons so they didn't have enough time to go into "soap opera" style stories.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The characters on TNG were, in many ways, an evolved form of humanity. They were beyond greed, lust for power, and a lot of the negative traits that plague humans today.

But nobody believes this, especially as we see plenty of humans in all the series who still have these traits. Didn't you watch The Enemy Within? Oh wait..

Guest stars wise I give the crown to DS9 for fabness.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

The characters on TNG were, in many ways, an evolved form of humanity. They were beyond greed, lust for power, and a lot of the negative traits that plague humans today.

But nobody believes this, especially as we see plenty of humans in all the series who still have these traits. Didn't you watch The Enemy Within? Oh wait..

The reason the humans in the other shows weren't perfect beings was because the writers didn't want to portray them that way. But TNG was Gene's baby from the beginning, and that's why TNG makes the future seem like such a utopia. Sure, not everyone Picard and the Enterprise encountered were as evolved as they were, but that was kind of the point. The alien races they encountered were supposed to represent some of the darker traits of humanity, hence the social commentary.

PS Wasn't The Enemy Within the TOS episode with two Kirks? Yeah, I couldn't stand that one.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I'll give you Meaney and Spiner if it had been a different role, maybe. Colm is a stretch, though, due to limited screen time. But he's good.

No way does TNG get Colm Meaney, he's with DS9.

But acting-wise I have to compare TOS's big 3 plus Scotty to all of TNG's main cast, since all the cast had lots of screen time. So, really, TOS's 3.5 v. TNG's 7? TOS by a mile. Maybe that's unfair to TNG, since it had so many actual recurring characters (as opposed to Uhura or Sulu, whose lines usually could've been anyone's). But TNG made the choice to feature more characters (a next generation), and frankly the acting talent isn't as strong imho.

To be fair TNG does get a lot of points in the acting category just for having this guy as the star

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusU90ov8pQ[/yt]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaLBfH3o1TU[/yt]

The characters on TNG were, in many ways, an evolved form of humanity. They were beyond greed, lust for power, and a lot of the negative traits that plague humans today.

But nobody believes this, especially as we see plenty of humans in all the series who still have these traits. Didn't you watch The Enemy Within? Oh wait..

The reason the humans in the other shows weren't perfect beings was because the writers didn't want to portray them that way. But TNG was Gene's baby from the beginning, and that's why TNG makes the future seem like such a utopia.

And an unbelievable future. There is no way in hell religion and capitalism are going bug off just because we meet aliens, and humans aren't going to become saints. Sorry but TOS's version of humanity is probably more likely.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

But nobody believes this, especially as we see plenty of humans in all the series who still have these traits. Didn't you watch The Enemy Within? Oh wait..

The reason the humans in the other shows weren't perfect beings was because the writers didn't want to portray them that way. But TNG was Gene's baby from the beginning, and that's why TNG makes the future seem like such a utopia.

And an unbelievable future. There is no way in hell religion and capitalism are going bug off just because we meet aliens, and humans aren't going to become saints. Sorry but TOS's version of humanity is probably more likely.

Whether or not you think it's realistic is beside the point. TNG's vision of the future is something that we can work to achieve. It was meant to inspire people.

 

[BillJ]

Whether or not you think it's realistic is beside the point. TNG's vision of the future is something that we can work to achieve. It was meant to inspire people.

Inspire them to do what exactly? To go out into the universe and tell others how much better we are than them?

TNG always made me laugh with their attitude of "we believe in your right to do things your way... as long as we approve". Picard's reprimand of Worf in Reunion being an obvious example.

 

[lstyer]

Star Trek has an older person, Dr. McCoy, showing that you don't turn useless and ugly.

DeForest Kelley was born in 1920 and debuted on Star Trek in 1966, when he was in his mid 40s. Patrick Stewart was born in 1940 and debuted in Next Generation in 1987, when he was also in his mid-40s. I don't know the lead times involved, but it looks like Stewart may have been about a year older than Kelley when they made their respective debuts.

 

[Navaros]

TOS is way better than TNG, because TOS actually tells compelling SciFi stories in most of its episodes.

For the most part, TNG tells stories that have nothing to do with SciFi. The other modern Trek shows suffer from that same problem as well.

The few times that TNG does attempt to tell SciFi stories, they are dreadfully boring and uninteresting (with maybe one or two exceptions).

To add insult to injury, TNG tries to be a drama instead of SciFi show, yet since it (unlike TOS) follows Gene's insane rule of having "no conflict among the humans or main crew" it annihilates any possibility that TNG could have been a good drama show.

In summary, TNG fails as a SciFi show and as a drama, whereas TOS excels as both. TNG's popularity is mind-boggling, because it has no redeeming qualities that make it a worthwhile show. TNG certainly has none of the qualities that make TOS great.

 

[Anwar]

TOS didn't even have that much "internal conflict", it was always their reaction to how to deal with external situations that led to conflict. It wasn't like they just were always at each others' throats when they weren't on missions.

TNG was more or less the same.

And heck, TOS's "Real Sci-fi Stories" weren't any different either or "true sci-fi" (most "sci-fi" stories wouldn't really work in the TV medium, just look at that "Masters of Science Fiction" series a few years ago). Hell, "Balance of Terror" was just "Enemy Below" set in space, what's so utterly sci-fi about that?

Please, when doing a "TOS is better" spiel try something more substantial than "It was real Sci-fi!" or "There was loads more conflict!".

 

[Hartzilla2007]

TOS didn't even have that much "internal conflict", it was always their reaction to how to deal with external situations that led to conflict. It wasn't like they just were always at each others' throats when they weren't on missions.

TNG was more or less the same.

Except with a now genocidal Prime Directive

 

[Harvey]

TOS is way better than TNG, because TOS actually tells compelling SciFi stories in most of its episodes.

For the most part, TNG tells stories that have nothing to do with SciFi. The other modern Trek shows suffer from that same problem as well.

The few times that TNG does attempt to tell SciFi stories, they are dreadfully boring and uninteresting (with maybe one or two exceptions).

I've heard this argument before, and I don't get it. What specifically makes most of the stories on Star Trek: The Next Generation "Non-SciFi" stories in your estimation?

 

[Anwar]

I mean heck, "City of the Edge of Forever" is total soap opera with the Kirk/Edith Keeler thing. The story wouldn't work without it!

 

[sonak]

I mean heck, "City of the Edge of Forever" is total soap opera with the Kirk/Edith Keeler thing. The story wouldn't work without it!

the romance in COTEOF is part of the overall very sci-fi premise. That's very different from a TNG episode like "In Theory or Lessons," where apart from an afterthought of a sci-fi B story, the romance IS the story.

 

[AdmiralScreed]

I mean heck, "City of the Edge of Forever" is total soap opera with the Kirk/Edith Keeler thing. The story wouldn't work without it!

the romance in COTEOF is part of the overall very sci-fi premise. That's very different from a TNG episode like "In Theory or Lessons," where apart from an afterthought of a sci-fi B story, the romance IS the story.

Nothing wrong with a good romance story. I think Lessons is great! Good continuity to the Inner Light, and some nice development for Picard.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I mean heck, "City of the Edge of Forever" is total soap opera with the Kirk/Edith Keeler thing. The story wouldn't work without it!

the romance in COTEOF is part of the overall very sci-fi premise. That's very different from a TNG episode like "In Theory or Lessons," where apart from an afterthought of a sci-fi B story, the romance IS the story.

Nothing wrong with a good romance story. I think Lessons is great! Good continuity to the Inner Light, and some nice development for Picard.

Yeah, it's good if a series can mix it up. Not make every ep about alien of the week, have the smaller stories. It doesn't all have to be hard sci-fi.

Whether or not you think it's realistic is beside the point. TNG's vision of the future is something that we can work to achieve. It was meant to inspire people.

Inspire them to do what exactly? To go out into the universe and tell others how much better we are than them?

TNG always made me laugh with their attitude of "we believe in your right to do things your way... as long as we approve". Picard's reprimand of Worf in Reunion being an obvious example.

Totally, and really my main objection to it.